Spanish Supreme Court maintains Carles Puigdemont arrest warrant and rejects amnesty for embezzlement

Continuation of national arrest warrants

Spanish Supreme Court investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena issued a judicial order on 15 September 2026 rejecting the petition by former Catalan regional president Carles Puigdemont to apply the amnesty law to his pending embezzlement charges. The judge simultaneously rejected an identical request submitted by former regional minister Antoni Comin. Because the amnesty petition was dismissed, Llarena confirmed that the national arrest warrant against Puigdemont remains fully in effect if the Junts leader returns to Spain. Both politicians remain prosecuted in absentia for alleged misuse of public funds related to the October 2017 Catalan independence referendum.

Evaluation of the European court ruling

Puigdemont and Comin based their latest petition on a 16 July 2026 ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union, which determined that the amnesty law does not infringe European Union law. In that decision, the Luxembourg court concluded that the Catalan secession bid did not damage the financial interests of the European Union. In his newly issued order, Llarena conceded that the European court finding directly eliminates the second legal ground he established on 1 July 2024 to deny the amnesty. That secondary argument had held that diverting regional public money for the independence vote impacted European Union budgetary interests.

The assessment of a purpose to obtain a personal benefit of a financial nature and the consideration that the events affected the financial interests of the European Union.

The persistence of personal financial benefit

Despite the European ruling, Llarena ruled that the primary and autonomous foundation of his earlier decision remains entirely unchanged. Under the Supreme Court interpretation, Puigdemont and Comin committed embezzlement involving a personal benefit of a financial nature. The court argues that by using public administrative funds to finance their political referendum, the leaders spared themselves from paying those significant expenses out of their own pockets. Because the Court of Justice of the European Union did not address or alter this domestic definition of personal patrimonial benefit, Llarena concluded that the embezzlement charges remain excluded from the scope of the amnesty legislation.

Pending review at the Constitutional Court

The magistrate also addressed arguments regarding recent rulings by the Spanish Constitutional Court, which had broadly validated the amnesty law against appeals presented by the Popular Party. Llarena stated that those constitutional rulings addressed the overall legality of the statute but did not evaluate the Supreme Court's specific interpretation of embezzlement. The order noted that the constitutional decisions neither invalidated the Supreme Court standard nor provided an explicit validation of it.

They have not invalidated the interpretation of personal benefit used, but neither do they constitute a specific validation.

Llarena indicated that his ruling remains open to revision once the Constitutional Court decides on the specific protection appeals filed by Puigdemont and other defendants. If the constitutional judges subsequently determine that the amnesty applies to the embezzlement charges, the Supreme Court magistrate stated he will implement that ruling immediately without requiring further submissions from defense attorneys. Until the Constitutional Court issues that decision, the national arrest orders will stay active.